America's Downward Spiral With Political Violence

What the supporters of "gun rights" fail to comprehend, despite their saying guns are "inanimate objects" is that "inanimate objects" can be turned against them. 

It's also poor policy to allow your opponents to be well armed.

Unfortunately, the concept of "gun rights" has allowed for the US to have way too many guns in the hands of the wrong people.

London Broadcasting Corporation's James O'Brien asks, 'Why are Charlie Kirk's words suddenly off limits?' Especially since Kirk did say about gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

 

The best sentence I've read on this subject is: "I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did."

How can you condemn me if Kirk said, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.  

Anyway, here's Tim Black for a final comment:

When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope

Charlie Kirk is the product of misrepresenting the Second Amendment to make it anything other than a declaration that the militia, that is the non-professional, part time defence force, should be protected.

The text says nothing of personal uses, in particular self-defence. In fact, the constitution makes it clear it only addresses the common defence (preamble: "provide for the common defence").

The phrase "self-defence" is absent from the text. 

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Anyone who wants to change the meaning of this, or wishes to imply that it applies to anything other than the common defence should be precluded from the practise of law.

In fact, the founders could have just said "fuck it, we screwed up" given what a mess they made with the war of  independence.

They didn't: they wrote a POS called the US Constitution.

Which includes something which was so insane as to be counter to their intent of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

I hope Scalia is burning in hell for his trashing of the law and the other Justices need to admit that they massively fucked up with Heller-McDonald and their progeny.

It's about the common defence,

Not a personal right. 

And show me where in the US Constituion it mentions a personal right to weapons, especially for self-defence, if you think I am wrong, or don't know what I am talking about. 

But, you can't do that because the text is silent on that topic.

Note: I added the photo since Charlie Kirk said gun deaths were 'worth it' to keep Second Amendment. I am not cheering his death, but this is an important point to add to this statement since his advocacy for this nonsense definitely contributed to his death. If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.

"I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did." 

The Alarming Rise of Political Violence in America

I wanted to come up with something about the targeted assassinations in Minnesota, which is where my two co-bloggers were located. It needs to be tied into what Luigi Mangione did and why that is not acceptable, even if you agree with his message. It's interesting that the act of political violence against politicians happened in Minnesota, even if that is only coincidental. On the other hand, political violence is a very disturbing trend. I agree with this commentator that it doesn't bode well for a country.

Armed mobs are more of a recipe for repression than freedom.

Stop defending Mangione...

This is what Karen Agnifilo Friedman had to say about him on the Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees That was aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00 ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01:

His lawyer's exact words from this:

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did. 

This is truly an open and shut case.

But, to quote H.L. Mencken:

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."

It never fails to amaze me the people who support Mangione. 

Leopold, Loeb, and Luigi

Now that Mangione's handwritten confession, which it pretty much is, is out there, we see him talking about "normies". I've already described him as a 21st century Leopold and Loeb. A smart, rich kid who thought he could commit a the perfect crime and get away with it. Unlike Leopold and Loeb who tried to commit the perfect crime, this guy was a total bozo. He was way too obvious and didn't cover his tracks.

The notebook is basically Mangione talking about his preparation for the murder. I have to admit that it has me thinking about Leopold and Loeb who  thought they were clever enough to get away with murder, and they spent months plotting out what they considered to be a foolproof scheme. Mangione talks about Ted  Kaczynski, the unabomber. He also talks about how he failed because the "normies" thought he was a monster. But what is a "normie"? Someone who is normal? Which is another thing which makes me think of Leopold and Loeb:

Leopold was interested in psychology, particularly the concept of Übermenschen (“supermen”) put forth by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche suggested that there were certain members of society with superior intellect who were able to rise above the laws that were meant for ordinary people.

Soon, Leopold became convinced that he was one of these supermen and, as such, was not bound by the laws or ethics of society. Eventually, he convinced Loeb that he was one, too.

They thought they were immune from society's laws, and to prove that, they would commit the perfect

crime:

At the end of 1923, Leopold and Loeb started planning their “perfect crime.” They decided murder would garner the most attention, so they began plotting how they would get away with it. They chose a weapon, decided how they would dispose of the body, and drafted a ransom note. All they needed was a victim.

 Mangione is looking for a victim who won't be sympathetic so he can "finally feel confident about what I will do. The details are coming together. And I don't feel any doubt about whether it's right/justified," He picked his victim because he worked in the insurance industry: "The target is insurance. It checks every box." Even sicker is that he decided he should instead "wack [sic] the CEO" at the conference because it doesn't "risk innocents."

He may have book smarts, but he sure as fcuk lacks knowse. There were several bystanders and his homemade gun put them in danger of being shot. He also seems unaware that terrorism isn't about the amount or extent of the victims or damage, but is very much a crime of intent. He wrote himself into a death penalty. Toss in that most jurisdictions enhance extrajudicial killing if they show intent. And His confession is more than enough proof.

He should have stuck to gaming since reality isn't his strong point.

There is a big difference between Leopold and Loeb and Luigi as he is now.  Leopold commented on his and Loeb’s “perfect crime" in his autobiography:

“Looking back from the vantage point of today, I cannot understand how my mind worked then. For I can recall no feeling then of remorse. Remorse did not come until later, much later. It did not begin to develop until I had been in prison for several years; it did not reach its full flood for perhaps 10 years. Since then, for the past quarter century, remorse has been my constant companion. It is never out of my mind. Sometimes it overwhelms me completely, to the extent that I cannot think of anything else.”

Also, Leopold and Loeb plead guilty, their process was a sentencing hearing. Mangione isn't willing to admit he was caught.  I think his arrogance is clouding his judgement.

Anyway, these are just my observations from what I have seen of both cases. And like Leopold and Loeb, Luigi is going to go away. But I don't think he is going to escape the death penalty unless he pleads out, but his ego won't allow him to plead out.

And a jury nullifier might cause a mistrial, but that will only delay the inevitable that Luigi will never see freedom. I also wonder how many of these lovestruck people would want a homicidal stalker loose on the world?

What don't you understand about "domestic violence"?

In the previous post, "Misinterpreting the Constitution", I mention the phrase "domestic violence", which has a drastically different meaning today from what the founders understood it to mean. While this video is fairly elementary (as in it's like my A level english course), it does make a few important points about language.
 

The major takeaway is that language of even a fairly recent time might be different from how we interpret it. And it's definitely different from what it was 240 some years ago. It's wrong to impose modern ideas on a text that old: especially if it is detrimental to modern society.

This next video gets into how when Shakespeare (Shakespear?) is heard in the original pronounciation, it makes the meaning clearer. Likewise, when the constitution is understood as a whole, it makes the meaning of the Second Amendment much more obvious that it relates to the militia, which is an institution that has changed drastically from how it was original conceived by the founders.

Another takeaway is that what people think pirates should talk like is the West Country Accent. I have to wonder if Shakepeare's English is coloured by his being from Warwickshire, which isn't exactly West Country, but it would have been signifiantly far away from London when he was alive. After all, the World's End Pub in Chelsea WAS way outside of London when it was built. Even where I live now wasn't as built up as it is now in the mid-1700s!

And people who have seen "Lost in Austen" will remember her visit to Regency period Hammersmith. I used to live in an area that was once farmland in the mid-18th Century and is now considered centre city.  But that's a lot of a digression other than life has changed quite a bit from the late 18th Century and we can't place modern ideas on texts written over 200 years ago. That probably even applies to something written 25 years ago.

Anyway, see also:

• Baron, Dennis, Corpus Linguistics, Public Meaning, and the Second Amendment, Duke Center for Firearms Law: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment
• ___.    Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment, https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/guns.pdf
• Amicus Brief NY State Rifle and Pistol Association, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193271/20210921155937883_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

Misinterpreting the constitution.

 What would you say if I told you that there is a constitutional obligation of the States to address the topic of domestic violence?

It's in the Constitution at Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Of course, domestic violence in the constitutional sense isn't a battered spouse. Instead the founders knew that danger might arise from internal forces, It is the constitutional obligation of the people in the federal government to use whatever power is necessary to deal effectively with both threats. So, it is the federal government to “protect” the people from “domestic violence” as well as from “invasion.”

Yet another tenet of the gun rights crowd shot down since the constitution is pretty clear that it deals with matters of the common defence and insure domestic tranquility. Can't have armed bands running around threatening the constitutional framework. After all, Shays' Rebellion was one of the reasons for the adoption of the Constitution. 

The war for independence was a pyrrhic victory in that it left the "United States" in disarray and heavily in debt.  The founders could have just said, "fuck it, we made a mistake, let's not bother with starting a new nation."  Each state would go its own way.

But the mythology is that it was the colonists themselves threw out the British at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Nevermind that the War for Independence went on for eight more years with a lot of help from foreign powers, particularly the French. And with that myth came the belief in "god, guns, and guts" made the US great.

But the War for Independence wasn't really the start of the colonists' aspirations, the glorification of the War for Independence leaves out that it was a reaction to receiving the bill for the French and Indian War. A war that led to British Troops being stationed in the colonies. It was their presence which led to these complaints in the Declaration of Independence:

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

The founders understood the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment as relating to the Militia and the Common Defence, in particular the powers given to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16. I would refer you to the analog to the Second Amendment created by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution of 1775.

What got me to write this was someone did a youtube video about American's love for guns which totally misstated the facts and presented the mythology of guns in the United States. We wouldn't be in the mess we are if it hadn't been for a radical reinterpretation of the US Constitution, in particular the Second Amendment, for a fantasy version of that text.

So, if you want to ask me "what don't I understand about 'Shall not be infringed'"? I have to ask if you believe that acts of domestic violence should be addressed by the state government?

The ultimate answer is that asking what I don't understand about "shall not be infringed" removes the Second Amendment from its historic and consitutional context. One which needs to be read as a whole since Marbury v Madison said that such an interpretation is "form without substance" it makes the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction since It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

see also:

• Baron, Dennis, Corpus Linguistics, Public Meaning, and the Second Amendment, Duke Center for Firearms Law: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment
• ___.    Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment, https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/guns.pdf
• Amicus Brief NY State Rifle and Pistol Association, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193271/20210921155937883_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

 

Yet another US gun ownership myth being blown apart.

 This is a clip from "Warriors of the Dawn: Indigenous Weapons and Tactics of King Philip's War" by Atun-Shei films (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXKXoA1_gQ ).

People talk about the Pilgrims, but they neglect Jamestown's Starving time. This occurred during the winter of 1609-1610, when two-thirds of the Jamestown colonists died of starvation, disease, and Indian attacks. Any firearms they had weren't very helpful.

As this native American interpreter points out, as I have as well, firearms during this period were expensive. They aren't inexpensive now either with the low end being around $200 for a new handgun. Maybe one can buy a beat up, used one for less than that.  AR-15s start arround $450 and go up,  with something like an H&K 556 at around 3k or Knight's Armament KS-1s being around 5k.

But a modern firearm is machine made, whereas firearms in prior to the 19th century were pretty much handmade. So, think about buying something like a Purdey, Holland and Holland, and Westley Richards did make firearms for the British Military. Maybe that's why they have a thing for overpriced guns for the army.

 The US war for independence bankrupted the country. Toss in the colonists would probably have lost if they didn't get help from France, or use stolen British arms.

Why proper regulation of firearms in the US is going to be difficult

It's not that I don't support gun regulation, but it's going to be really hard given the amount of guns in the US.

 

Getting them off the streets is going to require following Australia's example of having a massive gun buyback. But imagine how much that will cost. Toss in the Aussies funded their buyback with a tax.

it also seems there are a lot of these going on as is, but there are a lot of guns out there.

Luigi Mangione and the real elephant in the room

OK, while I support gun regulation: I am on the outs with a lot of the groups who are "working" on this effort. This is due to their support for duopoly candidates, who caused the problem. But it has gotten even worse with this incident.

Legislators who denounce "ghost guns" use this as a springboard for a "discussion on healthcare". I would hope that the reaction would have been different had Mangione been a mass shooter, but I am not so sure. His admiration for the Unabomber and use of assassination seems to be passed over.

If anything, this incident is a side show to distract from the real issues out there. In this case, his use of a ghost gun, which is a definite issue in the "gun violence" sector.

According to the Department of Justice, the number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement skyrocketed from 1,758 in 2016 to 19,344 in 2021, a surge of more than 1,000%. Nearly 700 of those weapons were involved in suspected homicides or attempted homicides.

OK, other than the gun rights crowd, not too many people are paying attention to this.

So, while I know the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, I doubt that the US will ever be able to address its gun violence problem. (BTW, anyone for using "domestic violence", US Constitution Article 4, Section 4, for some fun?)

I would also add that the US's tendency toward violence is actually quite frightening.

Got him!

 OK, while I believe that a lot of things in the United States need reform, healthcare in particular, using violence is totally counterproductive. I wonder how Jill Stein and the Greens would have fared in the last election if this clown had used his talents toward her campaign instead of a senseless act of violence.

He was caught. Not as quickly as I had thought he would be. He was also caught because of technology: CCTV in this case. The "surveillance state" isn't just big brother. It's also the mom and pop shops and homeowners.

He was a 21st century Leopold and Loeb. Smart kid who thought he could commit a crime. Unlike Leopold and Loeb who tried to commit the perfect crime, this guy was a total bozo. He was way too obvious and didn't cover his tracks.

And there was the "ghost gun". For all the experts guessing what type of gun it was: it appears to have been a 3D printed ghost gun. He wasn't a pro--the gun was a POS. I personally wouldn't use a gun I made from scratch. And I definitely wouldn't mess with one printed in plastic (polymer). I know what it takes to handmake a firearm and 3D printing is not it.

No sympathy from me for his killing someone.

I would have been more sympathetic if he had told his story as a reason for voting Green. Or to get the debate onto healthcare reform instead of which candidate is worse.